Talk:Australian scrub python

Description
The description section:

S. kinghorni has been known to attain a total length (including tail) up to approximately 7 meters (about 24 feet), with some field measurements claiming to be even longer, making this snake one of Australia's largest and longest snakes, if not, the largest and longest of Australia. This snake is commonly considered arboreal or tree-dwelling, making it one of the world's largest and longest arboreal species of snakes. This snake has an ornate back pattern consisting of browns and tans, with many different natural variations. Its belly is usually white, sometimes with some yellows.

"...making this snake one of Australia's largest and longest snakes, if not, the largest and longest of Australia".

This seems to be a redundant statement. I wonder if it should be:

"...making this snake one of Australia's largest and longest snakes, if not, the largest and longest in the World.

Mikerho (talk) 19:46, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 17 June 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus. No consensus on whether the name "Australian scrub python" is ambiguous and is also applied to S. amethistina. Some argue S. amethistina doesn't occur in Australia. Some argue they are not different species. Not a lot of agreement. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Australian scrub python → Simalia kinghorni – Assuming the species status described in this article is valid (which ITIS and The Reptile Database confirm), a different species, Simalia amethistina, is also called the "scrub python", and both of them are found in Australia, so the current title is ambiguous. I also don't know where the "Australian" part of this article title came from, since I have not found that word included in the common names given by ITIS or The Reptile Database. IUCN does not seem to list this species; however, an IUCN search returns three results for "scrub python" – Morelia amethistina (a.k.a. Simalia amethistina), Simalia tracyae and Simalia clastolepis, which seems to confirm that the name is ambiguous. A search on ITIS or The Reptile Database for "scrub python" yields two results – Simalia amethistina and this one. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support the scientific name is more commonly used than the present title, and scientific name titles are more CONSISTENTly used for snake articles than vernacular name titles. However, the article for Simalia amethistina need some updating for range and distribution. S. kinghorni and the other species listed as "scrub python" in the IUCN database were all formerly treated as subspecies of S. amethistina (which is noted in that article). If these are treated as separate species, S. amethistina sensu stricto doesn't occur in Australia; the Australian snakes are S. kinghorni. Plantdrew (talk) 01:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * S. amethistina occur in Australia as S. kinghorni, and their both call a scrub python. Link is this - https://reptile-database.reptarium.cz/species?genus=Simalia&species=amethistina and this - https://reptile-database.reptarium.cz/species?genus=Simalia&species=kinghorni. Amangeldy Beksultan 2.0 (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose default is for common name where possible. Australian scrub pyhon used nationally https://biodiversity.org.au/afd/taxa/Simalia_kinghorni here] by official gov't source. Many snakes changed many years ago and hard to move back due to first mover advantage. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * In the Wikipedia sense, the term "common name" does not necessarily mean a vernacular name. See, for example, the discussion at Talk:Daboia palaestinae. Although you found some government source that uses "Australian scrub python", that is not really a very commonly used name – e.g., it is not mentioned as a common name for this species by ITIS or The Reptile Database. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 11:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Neither of those are Australian sites for starters. No scientific name is a common name. Anyone who is familiar with biology knows that common name is pretty much synonymous with vernacular name. Yes if I had my way, we'd have all organisms at scientific names but we don't. Starting to fine-split over how universal or common a common name has to be in these cases opens up a big can of worms. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * What Wikipedia policies and guidelines call a "WP:common name" is different from what biologists call a common name. As far as Wikipedia P&Gs are concerned, the "common name" of a topic is simply whatever name is frequently used to identify a topic in WP:reliable sources. In some cases, that may be a pseudo-Latin binomial name. Here we are talking about a species that wasn't even recognized as a distinct species until very recently, and non-scientific sources are not likely to settle on a distinct name for it immediately. Sources do not need to be Australian in order to be credible, reliable sources. ITIS, IUCN and The Reptile Database are very high quality sources. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * errrr...under the link you just posted - Article_titles - "an article title is a natural-language word or expression" which I would take to mean not scientific name. I really don't know why you're pushing this particular wheelbarrow but whatever. Many animals append "Australian -" to them (Australian magpie etc.). To me it looks like you're trying to push this division to force it to go to scientific name for whatever reason. It gets really messy when you do that. And "recently" is relative - is 40 years ago. This is a well-recognised large Australian animal which has a common name. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I am "pushing a wheelbarrow" here, whatever that exactly means, and I suggest focusing on the content rather than your perceptions about other editors' motivations. Regarding the "40 years ago" remark, my understanding is that although this may have been proposed to be recognized as a distinct species 40 years ago, that perspective was not very widely accepted until more recently, and is still not universally accepted. IUCN still doesn't give it that status, and Wikipedia didn't have an article about it until 2016 – presumably assuming it was a subspecies of S. amethistina. In fact, the current Wikipedia article about S. amethistina still doesn't completely give it that status –  e.g., it contains two photos that it says are about S. amethistina that are from places in Australia –  but apparently, per Plantdrew, S. amethistina does not occur in Australia –  only S. kinghorni does. And according to this article, a cited scholarly work as recent as 2014 concluded that "the support for its distinctness was weak". ITIS includes the word "Australian" in its "common name" for the magpie, but does not include it for this snake. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * In terms of naming: there is a type of fish known as a "clownfish" but the article title is Amphiprioninae and there was a RM back in 2019 which results in no consensus to move. I do think clownfish is the common name for that but anemonefish could also be used equally due to their typical accomodation.
 * Also checking Google site search results: there is more results from the current page name than the proposed target suggesting "Australian scrub python" is more common than "Simalia kinghorni". See also Amethystine python where it is not titled "Morelia amethistina" or "Sanca permata". Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding the relative popularity of the terms, using Google Advanced Search for the exact phrase "Simalia kinghorni" versus "Australian scrub python", specifically excluding all pages that contain the word "Wikipedia", I find "Simalia kinghorni" appears more popular (5000 versus 4230 results). In Google Scholar, it appears to be the other way around, although the numbers there are very small (49 versus 17, and I am not sure whether it is restricting the results to exact matches). That is a more mixed result than I thought I would find after Plantdrew's comment. A more common name for this species actually appears to be "Morelia Kinghorni", with 7990 matches in Google Advanced Search (excluding Wikipedia) and 144 matches in Google Scholar! However, WP:NAMECHANGES may apply, as my understanding is that the recent trend is to prefer Simalia over Morelia. Google Ngram says it doesn't have enough data for any of the three terms. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Many academic papers use the scientific name or common name with scientific name in parentheses, which might explain the high count. Also, the genus change was recent, meaning material published before 2014 will use Morelia Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "No scientific name is a common name"; that's only true if lack of italics and a capital letter make something not a scientific name. There are absolutely common names that are spelled the same as scientific names. The boa constrictor isn't really called anything else. The name rhinoceros predates Linnaeus. There are numerous ornamental plants that are best known by the genus name; iris ("flag" I guess is a common name for some species), rhododendron ("rosebay" applies to a few species), fuchsia ("ladies-ear-drops" isn't commonly used, and the scientific name is the namesake of fuchsia (color)), petunia, zinnia, chrysanthemum, dahlia... Plantdrew (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair point, though it isn't the case here Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.